Paddy1000111

You legend! If that was posted on here elsewhere I missed it. Concrete proof instead of hearsay and random website blog posts! 👌

AHPP isn't Greta is it?!

I never got to the end with those debates. Seems like it's down to the council you fall under as to what they allow. Eaststaffs council (The only easily accessible PDF info) says: The following types of work are exempt from the need for consent: Cutting down trees in accordance with one of the Forestry Commission’s grant schemes, or where the Commission has granted a felling license; Cutting down or pruning a tree: which presents an urgent and serious safety risk – however you must give written notice (by letter or email) of the proposed work to the Local Planning Authority as soon as practicable after the work becomes necessary; which is dead – however you must give at least five working days written notice (by letter or email of the proposed work to the local planning authority; which is directly in the way of development that is about to start for which detailed planning permission has been granted. in a commercial orchard, or pruning fruit trees in accordance with good horticultural practice; to prevent or control a legal nuisance (you may find it helpful to check first with a solicitor); in line with an obligation under an Act of Parliament; by or at the request of certain organisations listed in the regulations. Removing dead branches from a living tree What do they mean by controlling a legal nuisance?

Couldn't see any white lines, just one massive one! looks like private land to me 😉

That's the thing with net neutral trees. You can cut down a 100 year old oak and replace it with a sapling to be carbon neutral but that sapling has to be there for 100 years before the cycle would be complete. That's where theses carbon offset tree planting programmes are good in theory but it's going to take 10-20 years for carbon created by a company during whatever process to be balanced out. A typical mature hardwood absorbs about 21kg of carbon a year so an acre of forest absorbs the carbon from roughly 2 cars...

I think we may be confusing processes though. If you plant a tree with the sole intention of burning it then it's net zero in a way. I'm on about be a tree company going round and removing trees for people or removing forests.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree 😂 A carbon positive process by all accounts is a process that takes stored co2 and releases it as a gas into the environment. If you cut down a 200 year old tree and release the co2 as a gas into the environment it's not a carbon neutral process. A tree, if left to decay naturally would only release a fraction of its solid co2 as a gas and the dead tree would also provide nutrients to another tree which would replace it and absorb the co2 the dead tree releases. Co2 is only an issue as a gas in the atmosphere and that's the only type of co2 we monitor. When it's stored in trees for any amount of time it's not an issue. You can't cut down a tree and burn it and call it carbon neutral, it's not what that term means! 😂 By cutting down a tree (a carbon sink) you release carbon into the atmosphere to get an end product (heat) if you don't replace that tree with another one you are carbon positive

What is carbon neutrality and how can it be achieved by 2050? | News | European Parliament WWW.EUROPARL.EUROPA.EU With the European Climate Law, the EU will commit to carbon neutrality by 2050. What would that mean in practice? Hopefully European parliament is a good source, finding reliable sources for info is a pain in the arse! In summary(from the above link): Carbon neutrality means having a balance between emitting carbon and absorbing carbon from the atmosphere in carbon sinks. Removing carbon oxide from the atmosphere and then storing it is known as carbon sequestration. In order to achieve net zero emissions, all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions will have to be counterbalanced by carbon sequestration. I know what you are saying but carbon neutrality is a process not an item. CO2 is in issue because its in the atmosphere. If we just cut down trees and burn them as wood is "carbon neutral" then we would release all that stored co2 back into the atmosphere. Our main causes of CO2 like coal, oil, gas etc are all stored CO2, we don't call them carbon neutral so why are trees any different. I think you are confusing a process with a label. If cutting down trees without replacing them was carbon neutral then all the rainforest deforestation (minus the machinery) would all be carbon neutral? Let's say you have 5 trees and they have absorbed 500kg of CO2 (forget the reality of measurements here). If you cut those trees down because a customer has asked you to and then you split them, dry them and burn them you have released 500kg of co2 into the atmosphere. If you don't plant any trees to replace them then you are carbon positive, it doesn't matter that the Co2 has been absorbed and released again as you have destroyed a carbon sink. The only way for it to be neutral is for you to cut down those 5 trees and get an end product (heat) and then plant 5 more trees as carbon sinks to achieve carbon sequestration. Carbon neutrality is the process of releasing carbon to get an end product and then absorbing that CO2 into a carbon sink like a tree or with carbon scrubbers. This is why so many companies are part of a plant a tree foundation. If you go and cut down all the forests they plant and burn it then you have released the Co2 they have created in the first place so the process isn't carbon neutral.

I got one of these: DUST COMMANDER DLX ESD - High Performance Cyclone Filter Element/Dust Collector: Amazon.co.uk: DIY & Tools WWW.AMAZON.CO.UK Free delivery and returns on all eligible orders. Shop DUST COMMANDER DLX ESD - High Performance Cyclone Filter Element/Dust Collector. and it's mounted on one of these: Oipps 60 L Plastic Blue Open Top Barrel Keg with Lid & Metal Ring UN Approved Food Grade: Amazon.co.uk: Kitchen & Home WWW.AMAZON.CO.UK Oipps 60 L Plastic Blue Open Top Barrel Keg with Lid & Metal Ring UN Approved Food Grade: Oipps 60 L Plastic Blue Open Top Barrel Keg with Lid & Metal Ring UN Approved Food... It goes inline with the hoover and works an absolute treat! Only fine dust in the hoover and all the medium/large stuff in the barrel!

Because carbon neutral means that the whole process from start to finish nets as 0 carbon at the end. Trees store carbon and then release it when it's burnt like you say. Thing is, by using "arb waste" you are taking that carbon and releasing it but without planting more trees to suck it up you are only releasing carbon. If you cut a whole forest down and burn it then pave over it then you are carbon positive as you have released a metric sh*t tonne of carbon but not absorbed it again. Crude oil etc is all trapped CO2 from organics centuries ago, by the logic that "It absorbed it so it can be released again" all fossil fuels would be carbon neutral too. The process to be carbon neutral is release and absorb not absorb and release. You can't cut down trees and burn them and call it carbon neutral, you have to clear up the carbon you released ie you have to plant trees to replace the ones you cut down or it's just a carbon positive process

That is only if someone is planting trees to replace those cut down plus extras to account for the CO2 from transport etc though...

Just for fun, here's the UK on Nox emissions Vs China about 10 minutes ago.. London is the worst part of the UK at 27, shanghai is over 190... Suddenly my A rated kettle and dishwasher that sips power is a drop in the ocean...

Probably, 1000'c is a lot of heat and the heat exchangers aren't 100% efficient so why waste that additional energy? The reality is burning biomass to make power is more efficient that running a 23kVa generator out the back of each house so you get the 100A@230v you get from the power line into your house. The theory makes complete sense, cut down trees, burn them, the co2 created is absorbed by the next set of growing trees. If you want to be carbon negative then plant more trees to make up for the CO2 created by transport (which could in future be electric vehicles powered by the biomass generator). Next we build a tonne of CO2 scrubbers and use those to further offset our CO2. Then we all sit down and cry because all these LEDC's (India etc) are producing about 10000x more emissions than us! 😂

The only way that biomass is sustainable is if we are growing trees at a higher rate than we are using them to offset the CO2 from transport etc. It doesn't seem that we are doing that at the moment, especially as we are importing biomass

From what I learnt about it, the fire is at around 1000'c the smoke goes through a cylone seperator and then an electrostatic precipitator or a filter. From there it goes through a giant catalytic converter to remove NOx, then they go through another condenser so they are at around 50'c. Then you get an output of cool, clean, co2. Basically if you burn a fire hot enough then it burns cleanly, stick it through an industrial sized catalytic converter to burn the rest and then cyclone and statically filter out the solids before releasing the CO2 I am pretty sure that biomass is dried before use though,

I'm still impressed that gangs are claiming fraudulent furlough. I couldn't claim anything for the first set as I did annual PAYE to make the accounts easier. I've finally been able to claim this time. I imagine these gangs have their "Business" set up as a LTD company with all their boys on PAYE? 😂

A henry with the correct filter will stop pm10 and pm2.5. I don't think there's any difference between a henry and an ash hoover apart from the name!

Sorry, I got what you meant! I meant that maybe the smaller particulates float up into the atmosphere and away from the sensors as temperature rises and then start to come down and towards the sensors as the temperature drops? I found humidity effects my asthma more than dust, I have a dehumidifier with a filter on it. It has a UV sterilisation light inside too but I don't think that does anything to the air, more likely reduces the chances of mildew growing on the coils. In terms of filtering for covid, coronavirus particles are about 0.06-0.14 microns. Hepa filters only filter down to 0.3 microns and ULPA filters down to 0.12 microns. All you can really filter out is the larger particles created by someone sneezing and keeping air fresh and flowing instead of stationary so particles can't be held.

I get the theory, people said the same about microwaves but that isn't how science works!

Probably that plus the drop in air temperature bringing particulate matter that's risen in the day to drop maybe?

Not saying shangai is bad for pm2.5 right now but that looks like they're breathing sand... 😂

Interesting data! I don't know a tonne about particulate levels but looking at my air quality map from windy my local PM2.5 (the most damaging?) is 3.8-4 currently (maxed at 30) compared to London which is 19 but maxed at 80!!! earlier today. My local PM10 is currently 10 but maxed at 22 during rush hour compared to London which is currently 17 and maxed at 33 during rush hour. I guess your air quality in your house is better than outdoors. With your fire open you're still lower than being outside in London...

I think the only way to do a fair test would be an inline gas flow meter of some sort. You could say the same about gas though, drilling, extraction, purification, filtering, transport etc. It would be a massive variable depending on where your gas/electricity comes from. If you're powered by nuclear you could effectively say 0 but how far do you go back? Mining etc? What about all the machinery used in the process? No such thing as carbon neutral/negative in my eyes 😂 I was just looking at some articles saying about how gas hobs/ovens create an indoor atmosphere that's 5x dirtier than outdoor air. Electric is down to what you're accidently burning at the time. Next thing we will be measuring the toaster for particulate matter 😂😂

In tests comparing the same wattage it seems that water boils in about 3 minutes less on an induction hob than gas. From a quick google it seems that gas is around 65-70% of the heat generated is used to cook where induction is 85-90% (ceramic is about 74%) as you loose some heat down into the glass cooktop etc. Then some sources say that induction hobs use 57% less energy than gas. Another source says that in a test gas was 32% efficient with induction being 74%... I want to read a nice test where they use the same pan and boil some water and compare how much gas is used to electricity and boil times. 3kw gas vs 3kw induction or something. It seems hands down that the induction hob wins in both time and efficiency but I want to know what the actual figure is! It would also be interesting to read the PPM/CO2/CO etc from a new and used cooker in a kitchen with an extraction fan. One in good nick seems to put out 5-15ppm but a poor condition one seems to be about 30. Would be interested to compare that to testing the room when opening the fire door slowly and chucking a log or two in.

It will be like putting the bins out. "Can we charge the car tonight or is it the black cars turn?" 😂 I'd be curious to know how much charging our grid can handle before the insulation starts dripping off the 240V overhead lines...